Doesn't really make a difference. The owners won't be interested in this, simply because it's a 1 time roll back. Doesn't appeal at all to the owners. 24% is surely much higher than the reported 10% that was rumored, however, it still will not appeal to the NHL and the owners.

They can...and they will have to pay with Luxary taxes for going over 45 and very very strick penalties over 60.(Didnt here this yet..buyt that was was rumored) If the cut the salarys back 25 percent then only 5 or 6 teams will be over 40 million.

I hope that's true, I really do. But the owners greed to get those players has been exposed year after year. They've proven stupidity year after year. So I hope they can work together, but basing a new CBA around owners 'working together' isn't realistic and extremely risky. What happens when a new owner comes in and wants to make a big splash, as we've all seen this happen before. It can't work that way, it won't work that way.

The NHL is looking for the safest way to have guarenteed revenues. Hoping that the owners will 'work together' is the furthest thing from safest.

Close to 500 million, that's almost double than what was rumored previously. The NHLPA really wants this 1 time roll back. Yes, it is a lot of money, but I don't believe it will interest the owners as much as people think it will, because of the longer term effects. A one time roll back, is a one time roll back, won't interest the owners.

Close to 500 million, that's almost double than what was rumored previously. The NHLPA really wants this 1 time roll back. Yes, it is a lot of money, but I don't believe it will interest the owners as much as people think it will, because of the longer term effects. A one time roll back, is a one time roll back, won't interest the owners.

However, the NHLPA is doing a good job with the PR.

Click to expand...

Bettman and the owners would have rocks in there heads if they turn it down. The rollback is contingent on no linkage. So are the owners better off with half a billion dollars in savings or something much less down the road.

Bettman and the owners would have rocks in there heads if they turn it down. The rollback is contingent on no linkage. So are the owners better off with half a billion dollars in savings or something much less down the road.

Close to 500 million, that's almost double than what was rumored previously. The NHLPA really wants this 1 time roll back. Yes, it is a lot of money, but I don't believe it will interest the owners as much as people think it will, because of the longer term effects. A one time roll back, is a one time roll back, won't interest the owners.

However, the NHLPA is doing a good job with the PR.

Click to expand...

It will be of no interest to the owners unless there is much more thrown in with it. A rollback addresses next to none of the issues long term.

The salary rollback means nothing if there are not control mechanisms to prevent further salary escalation. the 24% number is great, but if the system remains unchanged then its nothing but grandstanding. For the owners to go for this proposal it would have to include a cap on rookie salaries, a tax with teeth, team arbitration and a reviewed qualification system. Those mechanisms allow for cost controls. That is as close to a cap that still gives growth potential for the players as you can get IMO. Without those the NHLPA is just throwing out a big number hoping to impress the fans and media who have not been following the motivations of the league.